Maybe Bliss is the only reality of our being

[Phil]

Reality is indeed bliss, but the closest you will ever come is an orgasm, simply & only because, you are not me. 

[ConsciousDreamer666]

On 5/29/2024 at 2:37 PM, Phil said:

 

 

No problem, no worries, just, no thanks. 

 

That would be impossible. Check direct experience, attempt to take this, whatever this is, to the negative, whatever that is. 

 

That’s the illusion of ignorance.

 

“And not even”.

 

Pendulum swing. 

Go to the one that may be wrong now. 

 

“Go to him, he calls you, you can’t refuse”… 

 

Form is the thought form.

Thought isn’t form.

Perception of people, let alone other people, is a belief.

That someone else is assuming, is egomaniacal denial, and not even. 

 

Narrative is thoughts, interpretations appearing of, as & as if within the lens Being is being, without interpretation. 

 

Truth IS everywhere. 

 

 

I recognise your legit awakening, but there´s more.

 

There is a possibility to end the dream completely.

 

I like one of your phrases. 'Creator Creating Creation'.

 

Well, the fact is the Creator has gotten way too entangled in the creation. You can definetely enjoy the creation but there will be one day that it won´t,

 

Im building the system to mahasamadhi in this very life. Want to go back to the inmortal Bliss that I am. My Throne, Me withouth creation. Because any kind of form and creation means some kind of bondage for me, since I am the unlimited. 

 

I won't just settle for Love , I want to truly the ultimate.

 

@Phil As much as you say that Truth is everywhere (and is true) it is a fact as long as you carry a human body you can not be in the peaks of your consciousness, since You limited yourself for the sake of experiencing creation. 

 

Edited June 2 by ConsciousDreamer666

[Phil]

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

I recognise your legit awakening, but there´s more.

That would be the materialist’s paradigm purported as spirituality (spiritual ego).

There aren’t separate selves (already) (which awaken and recognize each other’s legitimate and illegitimate legit awakenings).

The duality implied is somewhat obvious, no?

 

As awareness, you’re aware fundamentally of thoughts, perception and sensation. The story about sep selves and levels of awakening isn’t found in perception and or sensation. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

There is a possibility to end the dream completely.

Question the presumption of beginning. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

 

I like one of your phrases. 'Creator Creating Creation'.

Feel free to quote it directly and note the hyphens. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

 

Well, the fact is the Creator has gotten way too entangled in the creation.

The hyphens are clarifying.

The Creator is never in creation do to being infinite. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

You can definetely enjoy the creation but there will be one day that it won´t,

And eternal. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

Im building the system to mahasamadhi in this very life.

This is spiritual bypassing. 

Inspect direct experience and the actuality of reality instead. Let obscuring nonsense go.

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

Want to go back to the inmortal Bliss that I am.

That is on behalf of the sep self of thoughts ‘in time’. As awareness, you’re aware of thoughts. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

My Throne, Me withouth creation.

Believe only what is verified in direct experience, rather than believing thoughts about reality / direct experience. Note the me, me, me, my, my ,my to spot dualistic beliefs. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

Because any kind of form and creation means some kind of bondage for me, since I am the unlimited. 

Form is the thought, form. 

As it’s believed there is a separate thing called form, in accordance with thought there is a separate self, the knower, which knows there is form. 

Creator-Creating-Creation. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

I won't just settle for Love , I want to truly the ultimate.

Question who or what that “I” is. The one which is separate of and won’t settle. 

 

51 minutes ago, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

 

@Phil As much as you say that Truth is everywhere (and is true) it is a fact as long as you carry a human body you can not be in the peaks of your consciousness, since You limited yourself for the sake of experiencing creation. 

Awareness is not carrying anything, aware of any peaks of itself, couldn’t possibly limit itself, as awareness is itself. 

 

Expression of emotions experienced is the bypassing of discordant egomaniacal theories (suffering). 

 

What’s-sought-what’s-seeking.

[Joseph Maynor]

On 6/2/2024 at 12:13 PM, ConsciousDreamer666 said:

I recognise your legit awakening, but there´s more.

 

There is a possibility to end the dream completely.

 

I like one of your phrases. 'Creator Creating Creation'.

 

Well, the fact is the Creator has gotten way too entangled in the creation. You can definetely enjoy the creation but there will be one day that it won´t,

 

Im building the system to mahasamadhi in this very life. Want to go back to the inmortal Bliss that I am. My Throne, Me withouth creation. Because any kind of form and creation means some kind of bondage for me, since I am the unlimited. 

 

I won't just settle for Love , I want to truly the ultimate.

 

@Phil As much as you say that Truth is everywhere (and is true) it is a fact as long as you carry a human body you can not be in the peaks of your consciousness, since You limited yourself for the sake of experiencing creation. 

 

 

Correct.  💯

Spiritual enlightenment is not about letting thoughts go only, it's about letting Maya go.  It's about resting in the Self despite Watching the Dream.  It's about knowing who the unchanging You Is (the I Am), and knowing this has nothing to do with the drama of the changing Dream, and any false identifications with it.

We don't act awful because we're unhappy, we act awful regardless, even when we think we're being kind.  Awfulness is the nature of Samsara. This is not a bug, it's a feature.  It's not to be hated, because that would be like hating a circle because it's not a square.  You just realize what Samsara is and seek to transcend it in this lifetime, if You can.  Bliss (unchanging underlying Peace) comes with that transcendence if completed.  There's no true holy man or woman in Samsara, including Joseph Maynor.  Stop looking for Holiness in Maya/The Dream, You'll never find It there.  It doesn't exist there by the very nature of the illusion.  Either You can get beyond the illusion in this lifetime or not.  Not everyone is supposed to be spiritually enlightened.  Some people just can't do it.  Given their circumstances they never could do it.  It would be too hard -- way too much to expect, too much of a leap for that person.  They're too attached to worldly concerns.

Edited June 20 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

On 6/20/2024 at 10:18 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Correct.  💯

Spiritual enlightenment is not about letting thoughts go only, it's about letting Maya go.  It's about resting in the Self despite Watching the Dream.  It's about knowing who the unchanging You Is (the I Am), and knowing this has nothing to do with the drama of the changing Dream, and any false identifications with it.

We don't act awful because we're unhappy, we act awful regardless, even when we think we're being kind.  Awfulness is the nature of Samsara. This is not a bug, it's a feature.  It's not to be hated, because that would be like hating a circle because it's not a square.  You just realize what Samsara is and seek to transcend it in this lifetime, if You can.  Bliss (unchanging underlying Peace) comes with that transcendence if completed.  There's no true holy man or woman in Samsara, including Joseph Maynor.  Stop looking for Holiness in Maya/The Dream, You'll never find It there.  It doesn't exist there by the very nature of the illusion.  Either You can get beyond the illusion in this lifetime or not.  Not everyone is supposed to be spiritually enlightened.  Some people just can't do it.  Given their circumstances they never could do it.  It would be too hard -- way too much to expect, too much of a leap for that person.  They're too attached to worldly concerns.

Enlightenment is precisely that there are no people / selves in time / lifetimes. 

[Mandy]

On 6/20/2024 at 10:18 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

There's no true holy man or woman in Samsara, including Joseph Maynor.  Stop looking for Holiness in Maya/The Dream, You'll never find It there.  It doesn't exist there by the very nature of the illusion.  Either You can get beyond the illusion in this lifetime or not.  Not everyone is supposed to be spiritually enlightened.  Some people just can't do it.  Given their circumstances they never could do it.  It would be too hard -- way too much to expect, too much of a leap for that person.  They're too attached to worldly concerns.

There's already no game going on here, no game to be hacked, no jailbreaking, no one who could. It's some some people who can't, there aren't some. What is it without the hope of it being achieved by someone in the future? 

[Jane]

@Joseph Maynor In response to “letting go of thoughts” -  seeking clarification.

 

 

Isn’t the “Self”  a thought? How is the self known without it first being a concept? 
 

What came first - the concept or the nameless one?

 

Isn’t that the problem with conceptual labels… the conceptualising of this nameless one?

 

Does a concept point to it’s concept-less nature?
Or does the concept-less point to it’s artificial conceptual nature?

 

Perplexing questions / thoughts! 🫢

[Joseph Maynor]

10 hours ago, Jane said:

@Joseph Maynor In response to “letting go of thoughts” -  seeking clarification.

 

 

Isn’t the “Self”  a thought? How is the self known without it first being a concept? 
 

What came first - the concept or the nameless one?

 

Isn’t that the problem with conceptual labels… the conceptualising of this nameless one?

 

Does a concept point to it’s concept-less nature?
Or does the concept-less point to it’s artificial conceptual nature?

 

Perplexing questions / thoughts! 🫢

 

Is The Self Just A Thought?  I think that's a good question.  From my work the Self is not a thought.  The Self is what makes thoughts noticeable.  I guess this comes down to whether the Self is seen as not a thought through direct experience or not.  People disagree about this.  Some people don't think there is a Self.  Right now I find that kind of not tenable.  If I am nothing but a thought, then that thesis has to go because: I Am in a non-changing way.  However that is conceptualized, is kind of a separate issue.  The thought that I don't exist entirely or that I am only a thought just seems to contradict the existence of Being Here.  It's like trying to wipe out your own Existence with a thought.  So, yeah people disagree about this.  I've disagreed about this.  I don't think I ever came to the conclusion that I don't exist entirely like some Buddhists do.  I've resonated with Zen, but Zen just avoids the issue of the Self by kind of side-stepping the issue.  I don't think Zen goes as far as to say that you or I am a thought.  That sounds more like Indian Buddhism to me -- where the self/Self is said to not exist.  That seems like extreme idealism to me kind of in the other direction of Advaita Vedanta, if the Self is seen as extreme idealism too.  You can go the Zen route where you just kind of pooh pooh idealism period and sort of refuse to think about it.  But then that avoidance of engaging with the question becomes it's own sort of idealism and philosophy.  It's a we're not supposed to talk about it or we can't figure it out anyway ideology.  So on some level, we all pick a poison with the philosophy stuff if you really look at it, and sometimes that shifts.  I've gone through several phases where philosophies have shifted for me.  Right now I'm going through this kind of Advaita Vedanta phase, but that will inevitably shift, just like it has my whole life. 

Am I the same Self that has Witnessed these changing thoughts, or is there no self there at all -- it kinda comes down to is there an answer or not?  We seem to not be able to resist stating an answer of some kind.  Even to say there is no answer is an answer.  Even to say one should have no thoughts is an answer.  The answer/an answer can be implied by moral shoulds and behavior recommendations.  And in Advaita Vedanta, any answer is just mind anyway because the Self doesn't think and only Witnesses the mind.  The you in the Dream seems to go with a philosophy of some kind.  I've never met a person who completely lacked a philosophy.  But I can't be a philosophy entirely, that doesn't seem fair to whatever I Am.  If I Am a thought, then what is perceiving or identifying thought as thought?  There seems to be an unchanging Consciousness there that sits above thought, that Witnesses thought.  And thought can go away too.  Sometimes there is consciousness of no thought.  If I were a thought, I would presumably disappear if there were no thought, but that doesn't seem to happen.  I think Buddhists would say your awareness of a Self absent thought is an illusion -- but this just seems like another thought.  The Zen response of just kind of laughing and mocking any answer just becomes another moral should and sneaky philosophy and implied thought of its own -- laughing at thought implies a certain thought even if it's not explicitly stated.

This is a good video, I thought I'd post it here.  You can see how Sartre was probably influenced by the morals of  Buddhism.  
 

 

Edited June 23 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

@Joseph Maynor

No self and No Self just refers to a finite or separate self. The self of thoughts. 

[Jane]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

If I Am a thought, then what is perceiving or identifying thought as thought?  There seems to be an unchanging Consciousness there that sits above thought, that Witnesses thought.  And thought can go away too.  Sometimes there is consciousness of no thought.  If I were a thought, I would presumably disappear if there were no thought, but that doesn't seem to happen

The answer to the “What” is perceiving thought cannot be answered without making the “What” another thought.

 

I don’t think the answer is what thought thinks it is, nor is the “What” question answerable since the question wouldn’t arise if the answer was already known.

 

The “What” is perceiving thought question would have to come from the sense of a separate self, who then questions it’s own existence.  Therefore, the unanswerable question must be the entrance into the metaphysical realm of unknowing. 
 

Metaphysics is a philosophy that science cannot find answers to, because it’s beyond the human mind of conceptual knowledge. Also I don’t believe there is anything to be known outside of human language which is knowledge. So in essence “ knowledge” is only pointing to the illusory nature of existence. Not that existence is not, but that it is not a self or a person, which is only an apparent appearance in this conception.

These are only my ideas by the way, that I have personally looked into for years of nondual study and introspection into the nature of being, they are just my opinions only. And to be honest I have no idea what I am talking about, I’m just singing. Like the birds. 😉

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your ideas Joseph. It’s fascinating to be shown the contents of someone else’s nondual mind. 

[Joseph Maynor]

8 hours ago, Jane said:

The answer to the “What” is perceiving thought cannot be answered without making the “What” another thought.

 

Even Maharshi (sort of) criticizes neti neti for this reason.*  The Self has to be known through direct experience, not through a process of elimination via mental exercise. 

A great pointer from Adi Shankara is: The Self = Pure Consciousness (pure meaning unconditioned, unalloyed).  The Pure Unchanging Witness Consciousness.  And this Atman is also Brahman -- that which ultimately exists, the Unchanging Reality.  These are just pointers because they are thoughts.  This has to be realized in direct experience, which doesn't mean sense experience, because the senses like thoughts cannot reveal the Atman/Brahman/Self.  You can directly experience or Know (Highest Knowledge) the Self once sufficiently pointed to It.  Another great metaphor from Shankara is that Atman/Brahman/The Self is like the sun that lights up Maya so that it can be Witnessed.  So the light is sometimes thought to be a metaphor of the Self.  Assume the Light is Unchanging and everything illuminated by It is changing.  The Light would be what ultimately Exists and the changing forms would be what is Maya/Illusion/Dream/Born (Brahma), Sustained for a Time (Vishnu), Dying (Shiva)/Etc.  Thus, a good pointer is: The Self is You as Unchanging Pure Consciousness Existing in Bliss (underlying Peace) Witnessing an illusion of unreal changing forms including your ego in a kind of Dreamlike process of change.  And identifying the Self with the self is what causes suffering due to ignorance of Your true nature as Brahman.  (Maharshi calls identifying the Self with the self the "I-Thought", so he's always talking about snuffing the I-Thought out in the Self which collapses that link pointing outward that conflates or sublates the Self with the self by the mind.  The nondual Self doesn't need an I-Thought because it can't be an object of the mind.)  Once You become Self-Realized, all this theory falls away like scaffolding and you just Be As You Are (Rest as the Self, or as Rest as Awareness (Adyashanti mentioned this).  

Is this all just a kind of Philosophical Religion?  I'm not sure yet.  It seems to resonate with me right now.  It seems to kinda stick with me.

*I stand somewhat corrected by ChatGPT as follows:

Q: Did Ramana Maharshi criticize neti neti?  

"Ramana Maharshi, a renowned Indian sage, is known for his teachings on self-inquiry and non-dualism (Advaita Vedanta). The term "neti neti," which means "not this, not this" in Sanskrit, is a method of Vedic analysis and self-inquiry to negate all conceptualizations of the self until nothing remains but the true self.

 

Ramana Maharshi did not criticize "neti neti" as a method of self-inquiry. Instead, he recognized its value while emphasizing a more direct approach. Maharshi's primary teaching was the practice of self-inquiry (Atma Vichara), specifically through the question "Who am I?" He believed that directly turning the mind inward to seek the source of the "I" thought could lead to self-realization more swiftly than other methods.
 

In essence, Maharshi's approach was complementary rather than critical of "neti neti." He acknowledged that "neti neti" is a valid method for negating false identifications, but he encouraged seekers to pursue a direct inquiry into the self. Both approaches aim to transcend the ego and realize the true nature of the self, aligning with the core principles of Advaita Vedanta."

Edited June 23 by Joseph Maynor